Category Archives: Movies

Movies

Zero Dark Thirty (2012) a (mildly) belated review

Given the popularity of the film and the many, many reviews of the same out there, I thought hard about whether it was worth it to offer my own spin on Zero Dark Thirty, perhaps one of the more controversial films of the past year.

After all, what more could I add to the myriad of opinions regarding the film, both good and bad?  Perhaps there was…we’ll see.

Briefly, Zero Dark Thirty is a film very much worth watching.  It is a steely account of the manhunt of Osama Bin Laden for the ten years from 9/11 to his killing by U.S. forces in 2011.

The movie’s main controversy centers around some early scenes depicting U.S. “enhanced interrogation” techniques, ie torture.  While the film does show that some information is extracted from one such use of the technique, in the end the film also shows that it is detective work and persistence that ultimately pays off in the manhunt.

Having said that, I can’t help but wonder what the critics were so bothered by.  Had director Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal completely avoided the topic of torture -something that was sadly very much a part of the early days of the “war on terror”- they would have rightly been accused of whitewashing a reality of those early days.  Also, this ignores what I found most intriguing about the later part of the film, how the many sins of the Bush administration wound up coming back to bite the protagonists in their quest to find Bin Laden.

For example, when our protagonist Maya (Jessica Chastain) pieces together the clues that lead U.S. intelligence to what they suspect is the Bin Laden compound, there winds up being great hesitancy (and 120 plus days of delay) before the order is given to assault the place.  In some of the film’s best moments (IMHO) we find that may of the higher ups in government are leery of committing any actions against the compound because of the dark specter of Weapons of Mass Destruction never found in Iraq.  In other words, the absolutist bluster of the Bush administration in that there were WMDs in Iraq and which led to the war in Iraq wound up causing the next administration to make damn sure they weren’t about to go down that rabbit hole again and assault a compound that certainly housed some high level figure (though they couldn’t be certain if they were terrorists or simply drug dealers) but one they could not verify was Osama Bin Laden himself.

If the film fails in any way it is that Ms. Bigelow chose to present her work in a very neutral, almost completely unemotional tone.  There are few ups or downs, with the notable exception being the tension from the raid on the Bin Laden compound.  For most of the rest of the film we “see” things through Maya’s eyes but because she’s presented throughout the film as an emotional cypher with no family nor lover and seemingly no friends, the film adopts her perspectives.

Which brings me to this:  In many ways, Zero Dark Thirty is not unlike another politically charged film, specifically All The President’s Men.  It is my feeling that All The President’s Men was a far more successful attempt to bring “real life” events to the big screen.  Both films shared a similar plot structure in that both sets of protagonists were hunting information.  In All The President’s Men, the information revolved around possible corruption in the White House while in Zero Dark Thirty, obviously, it was information leading to Bin Laden.

But what worked better in All The President’s Men was the fact that as a viewer I found myself far more engaged, emotionally, in what was going on.  Because of this emotional engagement as a viewer I was far more invested in the unfolding mystery and the very real fear that something sinister was going on here.  In Zero Dark Thirty, unfortunately, what I mentioned above regarding Maya’s lack of emotions winds up making most of what goes on an emotional blank and, therefore, we aren’t as deeply involved in the hunt as we might have been.

Despite this, I still recommend Zero Dark Thirty.  It is a worthwhile chronicle of a very dark time in U.S. history.

And, just for the heck of it…

 

Comic Books/Graphic Novels, General, Movies

R.I.P.

Yesterday came the sad news that two people who had a huge influence on my life -through their own work rather than any personal contact- had passed away.

Siskel & Ebert

Roger Ebert (on the right with Gene Siskel), probably the more famous of the two to the general public, was known for his many years of movie reviews, humorous wit, and liberal views.  I first encountered him on PBS when the late Gene Siskel and he hosted “At the Movies”.  They were a curious pair, often seemingly rubbing each other the wrong way while at other times appeared to be the best of friends.  In later years and after Mr. Siskel’s passing, much was written about their sometimes contentious relationship.  In this day of people’s opinions being such absolute “my way or the highway” tropes (especially in politics), it was refreshing to see two people with such different backgrounds and (sometimes) wildly differing opinions nonetheless get into meaty arguments over their views of individual movies.

Their analysis proved something of an intellectual watershed.  The duo taught me, perhaps more than anyone else in my life, the value of smart analysis and debate.  Though I would not agree with their opinions all the time, I grew to appreciate their viewpoints and through them realized that opinions could be radically different from mine yet could be just as right to them as mine were to me.

In his later years, Mr. Ebert showed incredible courage in continuing his life as normally as he could despite a series of medical issues which ultimately stilled his speaking voice.  In computers and the internet Mr. Ebert found a way of continuing to do what he so loved…”talking” with the world at large and offering his clever opinions on movies and everything else that fancied his mind.

Carmine 2

Carmine Infantino, though perhaps not as well known to the public at large as Mr. Ebert, nonetheless is easily one of the giants in the comic book industry.  During the so-called “Silver Age” of comics his artwork graced many a book and his designs for comic book covers were among the most recognized ever.

FlashBut to me what I’ll always remember and honor Mr. Infantino for is his work as editorial director for DC Comcs from the later sixties to 1976.  During that time DC Comics underwent an incredible change.  Mr. Infantino purged many of the older writers and artists and brought in a stable of talent both new and old to the ranks and supervised the release of some truly fascinating -and diverse- books.  During his run, we had the Denny O’Neil/Neal Adams Green Lantern-Green Arrow.  The same duo also moved Batman from the campy past into a darker, more eerie milieu and in the process created some of the best Batman stories ever.  Jack Kirby was notably whisked away from rival Marvel Comics and released the epic New Gods books as well as my personal favorite Kamandi.  Archie Goodwin and Walt Simonson collaborated on the memorable Manhunter saga while Len Wein and Berni Wrightson made ten of the most stunning issues of comic books ever with Swamp Thing.  DC Comics also released a series of great War and Supernatural books…and even combinations of the two!

If there was a “golden age” for me of comic books, it was DC during the very late 1960’s to the mid 1970’s and in that time the person in charge of the company was Mr. Infantino.  Sadly, his moves ultimately didn’t really work with the general reading population.  Many of the books mentioned above, now considered all-time classics, found their fans long after said books were cancelled and/or Mr. Infantino was ousted from his job.  It is a sad reality of life that sometimes the best, most innovative works are not appreciated until well after the fact.

Yet the diversity of product and the soaring imagination within the pages of the many books published by DC during that time remains a highlight of my childhood and, even today, a point to aspire to in my own humble writings.

Rest In Peace, Mr. Infantino.  Rest In Peace, Mr. Ebert.  You’ll both be missed.

Movies

The Innkeepers (2011) a (mildly) belated review

Director/Writer Ti West developed a strong cult following among horror film aficionados with the release of his 2009 film The House of The Devil.  Many viewed it as a great throwback to the slow buildup/high tension horror films of the past.  His 2011 film The Innkeepers, which he also wrote and directed, would appear to follow in the same tradition, this time focusing on one of the more tried and true horror tropes:  The haunted house.

Or, in this case, the haunted Inn.

Claire (Sara Paxton) is a very young twentyish woman who works at the Yankee Pedlar Inn along with the slightly older Luke (Pat Haley).  The Inn is on its very last days and will be closed forever following the coming weekend.  Yet Claire and Luke work on despite the low number of tenants and high level of boredom.  Why?  Because Claire and Luke believe the Inn is haunted by the spirit of one Madeline O’Malley, a woman who in the Inn’s distant past (the Inn is perhaps a hundred or so years old) hung herself in the basement.

Claire and Luke are effectively just like the various “ghost hunters” you (over) see on TV nowadays, people with cameras and audio recording equipment hunting for any evidence of ghostly doings.

While there is one humorous, though completely superfluous, scene outside the Inn wherein Claire visits a coffee shop run by Lena Dunham (yes, that Lena Dunham) and we get a few minutes of Ms. Dunham doing her thing, the rest of the movie is exclusively set within the Inn itself.

Claire, we come to find, is starting to hear things.  Her co-worker worries that she may be getting a little too involved in this whole “ghost hunting” situation.  Meanwhile, two final guests show up at the Inn, Leane Rease-Jones (Kelly McGillis) a one-time famous actress now devoted to crystals and assorted spiritual pursuits, and an old man (George Riddle) who insists on being given a room on the third floor, despite the fact that the rooms up there have already been stripped in preparation for the Inn’s closing.

I don’t want to give away too much more but suffice it to say that for those who are patient enough for this “slow burn” type film, the scares are delivered in bulk by the film’s delirious climax.

However, the ending itself left me rather…cold.  In fact, while I could forgive some of the extraneous elements in the film (the already mentioned Lena Dunham cameo, the mother and her son), the ultimate resolution of the film simply didn’t work for me.  It came across as a little too downbeat.

Anyway, that’s just me.  Regardless, The Innkeepers offers plenty of good buildup and a terrific climax that should have just about everyone suffering from white knuckle syndrome.  My only reservation lies in the film’s final few minutes, but otherwise its a keeper.

Movies

On second thought…

Thinking back on the post 30 Films That Aren’t As Bad As You Remember got me thinking about a similar topic:  Which films had I seen that I originally didn’t like -or outright hated– but grew to really like after the fact?

I figured there would be plenty of examples of this but after thinking for a while, only three came to mind.  Interestingly, the reasons for my switch in attitude on each of these three films was radically different.  In one case, the change occurred almost like a thunderclap.  I went from not liking the film to loving it, all in the course of one more viewing.  The other occurred very gradually.  I was unimpressed with the film but over a very long period of time found myself loving it.  The third is a classic example of focusing on the trees and missing the forest.  Or, to put it more bluntly, a case of the film was good and I needed to lighten up.

The Birds

The first film is Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds.  When I originally saw the film, I considered it one of those “of their era” type films.  It was one of those films I figured really must have shocked people when it was originally released but, over time, the shocks lessened.  However, as a big Alfred Hitchcock fan, I couldn’t help but also think that The Birds might just be one of those over-hyped films that simply wasn’t as good as his many others.  So for years I couldn’t understand why so many loved this film when, clearly to my mind, such films as Lifeboat, Rear Window, Vertigo, Psycho, Strangers on a Train, etc. etc. were so much better.  And then one day, it all changed.

On that day long ago, the film was on TV and I caught its climax.  Watching the ending of the film made me think about the rest of it and, just like that, I had an epiphany:  The Birds was Alfred Hitchcock’s attempt at making his own version of those monster attacks-type films that were so very popular in the 1950’s.  Only instead of using giant ants or spiders or scorpions, he used the common bird.  But that wasn’t the only subversion of those monster movie cliches.  There was no “cool under fire” scientific type that, working in concert with the military, figures out a way of controlling the menace.  The heroine, for her part, is left by the end of the film near-catatonic.  There is no happy ending here.

It was absolutely brilliant.

Needless to say, my opinion of The Birds changed at that very moment.  What I felt was a grossly over-hyped Alfred Hitchcock vehicle became, in my opinionm Mr. Hitchcock’s last truly great film (I’m not saying the rest of his movie released following this were “bad”, its just that I don’t feel the handful of post The Birds films were quite as good as what came before, and that’s an opinion that hasn’t changed over time).

shining

The next film in this list of three took literally years to percolate in my system.  Back in 1980 I wasn’t all that familiar with one Stanley Kubrick, but was intrigued with the upcoming release of The Shining.  Stephen King’s novels were becoming a nation wide phenomena and the idea of seeing Jack Nicholson in a scary feature had me eager to see this.  My father and I went to the theater upon its release and, frankly, I was completely unimpressed with what I saw.  To be even more blunt, rather than scare me the film proved a bore.

I subsequently learned of Stanley Kubrick’s other films and became a big fan of his works. But The Shining, I still felt, simply didn’t do it.  Then, over the next five or so years, I caught bits and pieces of the film on TV.  With each little clip I saw I realized that this was a film not about outright horror but rather about slow tension and suffocating dread.  This is a creepy film that draws you into its icy grip one chilling scene after the other.  While I still agree with some of the critics that perhaps Mr. Kubrick should have given Jack Nicholson’s character a more gradual flight path toward insanity, even that criticism became irrelevant.  The Shining is a film you drink in.  Like its protagonists you start to feel yourself trapped in this elegant, well lit (!), yet incredibly menacing setting.  Like them, you realize there’s no escape, even as one of your own starts showing signs of not being all that right in the head…

So over the years my opinion of The Shining changed.  Not only did I feel this was a great film, but I began to feel that it could well be one of the all time best horror films ever made!  Quite a change in attitude!

predatorThe third film on my list was one that was incredibly popular upon its first release.  Call me a movie snob, but when I saw it (coincidentally, also with my father), we both laughed at its silliness and brushed it off as a dumb film.

Why did we feel this way?  Because in the opening sequences of the film, when Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Dutch has his little chat with Carl Weathers’ Dillon, they talk about a mission Dutch didn’t take to Libya.  Dutch tells Dillon something to the effect that “I don’t participate in massacres”.  Yet a few scenes later, Dutch and his boys (including Dillon) effectively do just that, attacking a small village of poorly equipped rebels and, yes, overwhelm and massacre the entire bunch of them.  In fact, the massacre is so complete that I was almost expecting Dutch and his gang to start slicing off rebel ears and making necklaces out of them.

So bothered was I by this silliness that it took me out of the film entirely and, as I mentioned above, lost sight of the forest because of those particular trees I was focused on.  It didn’t take long, however, for me to realize I was being waaaay too silly here myself. Yeah, Dutch’s conversation with Dillon remains hypocritical but, so what?  Get over yourself and enjoy the film for what it is:  A great action/horror hybrid.  Along with Aliens, perhaps one of the best ever.

 

Movies

30 Movies That Aren’t As Bad As You Remember…

1 Comment

…at least according to the folks at totalfilm.com:

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/30-movies-that-aren-t-as-bad-as-you-remember

Of the films listed, I’ve seen a whopping 19 of them and bits and pieces of another five or so (but not the whole film).

Given this is an opinion piece, and opinions are just that, I would agree with them on some of the films I’ve seen -ie the listed films weren’t that awful- while disagreeing with them on others.

For example, Spawn, Hudson Hawk, Spider Man 3, Tron Legacy, Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace, The Last Action Hero, Superman Returns, and Superman III I still consider pretty bad films.  It’s interesting to note that going into each and every one of those films I felt a sense of optimism, that the film would be enjoyable, but was ultimately disappointed in big ways and small.

Tron Legacy, for example, looked absolutely spectacular in the theatrical trailers.  But when I finally saw the film I realized that apart from those spectacular visuals the viewer was saddled with a story that, frankly, meandered and never caught fire.  Hudson Hawk, which I admittedly haven’t seen since it was first released (who knows, my opinion of it might change) I found to be an incomprehensible mess…a film that tried to be cheeky in its humor and simply bored the hell out of me, despite the megawatt charisma of Bruce WIllis.  Similarly, I eagerly anticipated seeing Superman Returns, but my first attempt to see the film was aborted after only watching about twenty minutes.  I was so bored I just had to shut the film off.  Brandon Routh was good in the title role, a tough act to follow from Christopher Reeve, but later, on my second (and final) attempt to see the whole film my worst fears were confirmed:  Superman Returns was a much, much duller remake of the original -and vastly superior- Superman.  Worse, they added elements into the film that never amounted to much (Lois Lane having a boyfriend, Superman leaving Earth for a number of years, Superman’s son).

As for Superman III, that’s one of those terrible films that nonetheless has at least one thing worth watching, and that’s the “evil” Superman versus the “good” Superman/Clark Kent.  If only the rest of the film was even a fraction as good as the parts leading up to this:

Which brings us to the films I agree with them about.  I won’t list them all, but deserving mention as films that I felt weren’t quite as horrid as others made them out to be are Cutthroat Island, John Carter, Miami Vice, Terminator: Salvation, Waterworld (yes, Waterworld), and Exorcist III.  I don’t think any of these films will ever be viewed as “lost classics”, but none of them, again in my opinion, were as terrible as the general public seemed to view them.

It’s an interesting list nonetheless, and provide me with some food for thought…

Movies

Holy Motors (2012) a (mildly) belated review

When I first heard of Holy Motors it was via some seriously positive reviews that noted the film was surreal yet thought provoking, bizarre yet beautiful.

My spider senses were definitely tingling.

Mind you, I’m not a huge fan of surreal cinema, but when its good (Mulholland Drive, for example) it can be really, really good.  Unfortunately, the flip side of this is that when its bad, it can certainly be very, very bad.

It’s been only a day since I finally got to see Holy Motors, and my opinion of it is still evolving even as I write this sentence.  As a very surreal film, it defies easy explanation regarding its plot.  The best I can offer is the following:  A man named Oscar (Denis Lavant) is being driven through Paris for a day.  His driver (Edith Scob) is his only constant company and she takes him from one “assignment” to another, wherein the man dresses and/or disguises himself for a series of different “scenes” he is playing out.  Oscar, you see, is an actor and during the course of the day he will participate in nine different sequences which vary wildly from place to place.

A comment on acting and cinema?  A comment on how individuals “appear” differently from scenario to scenario throughout life?

It’s open to your interpretation.  There are hints and allusions to other works of art, from film to novels (I apparently wasn’t the only one to catch a wiff of Moby Dick in the film’s DNA).

Early in the movie we have the two most show stopping segments.  The first involves our actor participating in a “motion capture” film.  He is dressed in black with motion detection silver spheres spread throughout his body.  His movements during this sequence, which eventually becomes highly sexual, are beautiful to behold, and toward the end of the sequence when we finally see what our actors’ motions are being animated as, I suspect the message delivered is that the human form is so much more beautiful in motion than whatever the computer animators come up with afterwards.

The next sequence, certainly the most off-the-wall of the bunch, involves our actor becoming a “beast” and kidnapping a “beauty” (Eva Mendes).  One of the more interesting things about that segment, other than its sheer, unambiguous bizarreness, is that early on in the skit when the “beast” is walking through a graveyard the tombstones, rather than announcing who lies beneath, announce websites they would like people to go to.  Not sure what the meaning of that is, other than that the internet is full of dead sites.  Anyway, unlike the motion capture segment, this one had me scratching my head and wondering just what the hell all that was about.  For those who are averse to male nudity, the conclusion of that particular segment might be a (ahem) turn off.

From there, the movie becomes a little more sedate, featuring interactions between Oscar and what appear to be a series of family relations.  A daughter, a niece, an old lover.  There’s also segments involving assassination and murder, both equally strange.

As I said before, I’m still digesting this film.  Immediately after watching it, I was bewildered and overwhelmed by the strange sights and sounds but after a day of sorting things out, I’m far more enthusiastic over what I saw.  Having said that, I find it difficult to recommend this film to the casual theater goer.

The fact is that Holy Motors demands your attention and patience as well as a desire to follow its strange cinematic paths.  If you give it a try, you may well find yourself well rewarded in the end.

Movies

Hit and Run (2012) a (mildly) belated review

Dying is easy, comedy is hard.

And how.

I can’t tell you the number of “comedy” films I’ve seen which may have elicited, at best, a chuckle or two rather than the hilarity promised.  Thus, I’m often weary when thinking of putting on a comedy.  However, when I first heard of the 2012 film Hit and Run, I was intrigued.  The movie seemed to come out of nowhere and the critics were relatively kind to it.  But what interested me the most was their description of what the film was:  A romantic comedy that was also a throwback to 1970’s car chase films.

Man, its been a while since those type of films were released, having buried themselves in mediocrity or worse in the 1980’s.  So, when the film made it to home video, I had to give it a shot.  The result proved a pleasant diversion and certainly a decent enough time killer.

Hit and Run’s plot isn’t all that original and I got more than a little wiff of Ron Howard’s directorial debut, 1977’s Grand Theft Auto (no relation to the popular video game series) in its Romeo & Juliet-like plot.  Grand Theft Auto featured two young lovers on the run from assorted crazy people, including the female lead’s ex-lover.  In Hit and Run, we have Kristen Bell playing Annie Bean, a teacher who has been given a once in a lifetime opportunity to leave her small town and become the department head at a school in Los Angeles.  The only complication is that her boyfriend, Charles Bronson (yes, you read that name right and there’s a definite joke involved in this), played by Dax Shepard, is in the witness protection program and venturing outside of that small town could be hazardous to his health.

Nonetheless, the two do venture outside their small town with a very tight deadline to reach L.A.  Along the way, they quickly are pursued by Annie’s ex-boyfriend, the Marshall assigned to protect Charles, a pair of cops, and, finally, member’s of Bronson’s ex-gang.

There are plenty of amusing cameos (and one larger cameo by Bradley Cooper) that liven things up.  Unlike the car chase movies of the 1970’s, there is precious little actual vehicular mayhem in this film.  There are a few chases and they’re reasonably well done, but unlike Grand Theft Auto, there’s very little actual wreckage to be seen.

As a comedy, the movie works for the most part, drawing laughs from dialogue and situations.  Having said that, there are occasions where a joke was pushed along a little too much.  Without giving too much away, one of the movie’s funniest jokes involves one of the character’s “adventures” while in prison.  The joke builds to a hilarious punchline, but once it is reached the characters talk on for another couple of minutes and effectively dampen what should have been a hilarious bit.

In other words, some judicious trimming might have helped.

Still, Hit and Run is a decent if not spectacular film to spend a couple of hours with.  Afterwards, you may want to dust off your copy of Smokey and the Bandit and give it a whirl.

I’ve provided the trailer below but if you’re planning to see the film I suggest you don’t play it. Like too many trailers, it gives away the biggest joke (but stops where it should have!)

And now, a blast from the past…the trailer to Grand Theft Auto!

Movies

Taken 2 (2012) a (mildly) belated review

2 Comments

When it was originally released in 2008, Taken proved a surprise hit.  The plot was simplicity itself:  The daughter of a shady ex-CIA operative is kidnapped in Europe.  Using the skills he acquired while “on the job”, our hero mercilessly pursues the kidnappers, stopping at nothing to get his daughter back.

I suspect what made the film work so well was that Liam Neeson, the film’s star, projected such a no-nonsense attitude and was willing to not only rough up the bad guys, but also go after alleged friends (and their wives!) to get what he needed.  Neeson’s Bryan Mills became, effectively, a force of nature and would not be stopped in the pursuit of his goal.

So, four years later, we get Taken 2.  The film actually follows a logical story arc: The family of the people Mills took out in the first movie want revenge.  And, wouldn’t you know it, but Mills and his ex-wife and daughter just happen to be traveling within spitting distance in Istanbul…

When it was released, Taken 2 didn’t get quite the same level of love the original film received from both critics and audiences.  I suppose this was to be expected.  After all, there are some big leaps in logic one has to accept.  After all the crap Mills pulled in the first Taken, one would think there are NO countries that would welcome him or his family into their borders…yet the trio wind up, as stated, within spitting distance of the relatives bent on getting revenge. I suspect the film might have played out a little better if it were set on Mills’ home ground, with the villains coming after him.

But ignoring that little point, I expected the film to be something of a let down, at least based on all that was written/talked about.  I was surprised to find, however, that Taken 2, while certainly no masterpiece, was a decent little pulp action thriller.  The bad guys were bad enough and the situations were tense enough to pass the time.  Yeah, there were other problems to be found other than the setting.  Liam Neeson fights a few times in the film and, frankly, no amount of quick film editing can make him look like a fearsome fighter.  Also, the film spends perhaps a little too much time in the United States before heading out to Istanbul (was it really necessary to get into his daughter’s boyfriend and the fact that she was in the process of getting a driver’s license?  Don’t get me wrong, I feel Maggie Grace, who returns as Mills’ daughter, is a good actress.  So good that for the most part she pulled off her role in this movie, acting as if she was 17 or 18 years old despite being 29 years old while filming.  Still, there was little reason to get into the whole boyfriend stuff, which had almost no payoff in the end).

OK, OK, I know I’m starting to nit-pick and should just stop.  No, Taken 2 is no masterpiece, but as mentioned before, it is an enjoyable time killer action/adventure film that only asks its audience to sit back and enjoy the ride.  While perhaps not as sharp as the original, Taken 2 nonetheless for the most part gives you what you’re asking for…provided you aren’t too demanding.

Movies

Spielberg to oversee Kubrick’s Napoleon?

Fascinating article posted on both Ain’t It Cool News and /Film concerning one of my all time favorite director Stanley Kubrick’s aborted Napoleon project perhaps being made after all, with Steven Spielberg working behind the scenes on the project:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/61262

http://www.slashfilm.com/steven-spielberg-developing-stanley-kubricks-passion-project-napoleon-as-mini-series/

While normally I’d rejoice at the news, I’m only cautiously optimistic.

As far as I know, there were two major projects left unfinished by Stanley Kubrick when he passed away.  Of the two, the one that intrigued me the most was eventually made by director Steven Spielberg in 2001, A.I. Artificial Intelligence.

As a fan of the works of both Mr. Kubrick and Mr. Spielberg, I figured A.I. would be a “can’t miss.”  I was excited by the early word of what the film was about and, as the movie’s release date approached, I was breathless with anticipation.

Then the movie came out.

The reviews were -incredibly to my mind- generally negative.  The movie was too long.  The movie was too obvious.  The movie was tedious.

It wasn’t until A.I. was finally released to home video (even back then I found it hard to carve out time to go to a theater!) that I finally got to see it and all that anticipation, all that hope…it simply dissolved.

A.I. is an ambitious film, there is no denying that.  But it was also everything the critics said it was.  It was way too long and the subject matter was simply not interesting enough (to me) to sustain itself.  A.I. was essentially an “adult”/sci-fi version of Pinocchio.  Not all that much more, truthfully.

So here I am, cautiously optimistic that, should Mr. Spielberg make Napoleon, it will prove to be a good film/mini-series.

Hopefully, it won’t be as big a disappointment as A.I.

Movies

The Devil’s Mask (1946) a (very) belated review

If you’re a fan of old time (and sometimes creaky) mysteries, you could do far worse than spend a little over an hour watching The Devil’s Mask.

The story, let’s face it, is lower level pulp.  We begin with a shadowy figure breaking into a museum and doing something with one (or more?) of the five shrunken heads on display recently brought in from South America.  Then, a plane crashes and one of the few things recovered from the wreckage is a box whose address and destination has been burned off but whose contents remain intact.

Inside the box?

A shrunken head, of course!

Meanwhile, two detectives -one “serious” and the other more of a “comic relief”- are hired by the wife of a disappeared explorer to check in on her step daughter and boyfriend.  The boyfriend is following her around at the behest of her stepdaughter and the stepmother fears the two want to do her harm.  You see, the explorer who brought those shrunken heads into the museum is/was the husband of the stepmother, and he has mysteriously disappeared following an expedition south.

Was he murdered?  By whom?  Could the stepmother be hiding a hidden lover?  Could she and the lover be the killers?  Or is it possible the missing explorer is still alive and lurking in the shadows…ready to strike?

As I said, the plot itself is pure pulp and either you enjoy this sort of stuff or you won’t.  Regardless, one can appreciate the lovely black and white cinematography and use of very heavy shadows.  While the plot itself was mildly diverting, even a fan of the pulps like me will admit the story itself borders on the ridiculous (the whole airplane crashing thing never really amounted to more than a way to introduce the idea of the shrunken heads and the payoff to that was more than a little silly).

Still, what can I say?  I enjoyed the film and it was short enough (as I said before, its total runtime is a little over an hour) to not wear out its welcome.  A cautious recommendation is offered to those who like these kind of old “B” films.

Others might want to steer clear.